This article presents an evaluation of the Client Management Classification System (CMC), a method for assessment and differential supervision of offenders that embodies the principle of responsivity. As in prior evaluations of the CMC, probationers whose officers were trained in CMC techniques experienced lower rates of revocation compared with regularly supervised subjects. However, the experimental group incurred similar or higher rates of rules violations and arrests. Of particular interest, the study found that supervision of experimental subjects did not conform to recommended CMC strategies. In combination, these results suggest the possibility that training in CMC successfully heightened officers’ understanding of offender motivations and needs, leading them to view probationer misconduct in a more lenient and flexible context—and thereby producing the appearance of favorable outcomes. The findings have implications for the design of evaluations of efforts to implement principles of effective offender treatment in community corrections agencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. A. (1999). Assessing program elements for risk reduction: The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. In P. M. Harris (Ed.), Research to results: Effective community corrections(pp. 151-190). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
2.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
4.
Baird, C., & Neuenfeldt, D. (1990). The Client Management Classification System. NCCD Focus, 1990, 1-7.
5.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (1986). Criminal careers and career criminals (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
Bonta, J. (1995). The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation. Forum on Corrections Research, 7, 34-37.
7.
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1992). Inmate classification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-353.
8.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.
9.
Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A. J., & Baird, C. (1989). The effectiveness of new intensive supervision programs. Research in Corrections, 2, 1-48.
10.
Clear, T. R., & Gallagher, K. W. (1983). Screening devices in probation and parole: Management problems. Evaluation Review, 7, 217-234.
11.
Clear, T. R., & Gallagher, K. W. (1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current practices. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 423-443.
12.
Clear, T. R., & Latessa, E. J. (1993). Probation officers’ roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441-462.
13.
Dooley, M. (1999). Classification and restorative justice: Is there a relationship? In Topics in Community Corrections. Annual Issue 1999: Classification and Risk Assessment (pp. 38-42). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
14.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
15.
Eisenberg, M., & Markley, G. (1987). Something works in community supervision. Federal Probation, 51, 28-32.
16.
Fulton, B., Stichman, A., Travis, L., & Latessa, E. (1997). Moderating probation and parole officer attitudes to achieve desired outcomes. Prison Journal, 77, 295-312.
17.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principle of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply(pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (4th ed.). St. John, New Brunswick, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
19.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (pp. 271-280). Cincinnati: Anderson.
20.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180-187.
21.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
22.
Harris, P. M. (1994). Client Management Classification and prediction of probation outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 154-174.
23.
Hart, T. C., & Reaves, B. A. (1999). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 1996. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
24.
Hoffman, P. B. (1994). Twenty years of operational use of a risk prediction instrument: The United States parole commission’s salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 477-494.
25.
Jones, D. A., Johnson, S., Latessa, E., & Travis, L. F. (1999). Case classification in community corrections: Preliminary findings from a national survey. In Topics in Community Corrections. Annual Issue 1999: Classification and Risk Assessment(pp. 4-10). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
26.
Kennedy, S. (1999). Responsivity: The other classification principle. Corrections Today, 61, 48-51.
27.
Kennedy, S., & Serin, R. (1997). Treatment responsivity: Contributing to effective correctional programming. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, 7, 46-52.
28.
Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22-29.
29.
Leininger, K. (1998). Effectiveness of client management classification. Unpublished report prepared for the Florida Department of Corrections.
30.
Lerner, K., Arling, G., & Baird, S. C. (1986). Client management classification strategies for case supervision. Crime & Delinquency, 32, 254-271.
31.
McManus, R. F., Stagg, D. I., & McDuffie, R. C. (1988). CMC as an effective supervision tool: The South Carolina perspective. Perspectives, 1988, 30-34.
32.
National Institute of Corrections. (1991). National Academy of Corrections lesson plans for strategies for case supervision. Unpublished manuscript.
Petersilia, J. (1998). Experience with intermediate sanctions: Rationale and program effectiveness. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions(pp. 68-70). New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
Polizzi, D. M., MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (1999). What works in adult sex offender treatment? A review of prison- and non-prison-based treatment programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 357-374.
36.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
37.
Schneider, A. L., Ervin, L., & Snyder-Joy, Z. (1996). Further exploration of the flight from discretion: The role of risk/need instruments in probation supervision decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 109-121.
38.
Serin, R., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Treatment readiness and responsivity: Contributing to effective correctional programming (Research report R-54). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.
39.
Silver, E., Smith, W. R., & Banks, S. (2000). Constructing actuarial devices for predicting recidivism: A comparison of methods. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 733-764.
40.
Van Voorhis, P. (1997). Correctional classification and the “responsivity principle.” Forum on Corrections Research, 9, 46-50.
41.
Vasoli, R. H. (1967). Some reflections on measuring probation outcome. Federal Probation, 31, 24-32.
42.
Waldo, G., & Griswald, D. (1979). Issues in the measurement of recidivism. In L. Sechrest, S. O. White, & E. D. Brown (Eds.), The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: Problems and prospects (pp. 225-250). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
43.
Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of correctionsbased education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347-368.
